Bradford Fire - Not an accident? (Merged)

[Bristol Rob]

Just reading that the former Bradford chairman who was in charge of Bradford City 30 years ago was 'victim' of an extraordinary 9 different fires his businesses were associated with. 

 

More details on The Guardian website.

 

Hope this isn't the case and that the fire was just a terrible accident, purely for the victims/families impacted by this disaster.

[Barrs Court Red]

I think the cause of that disaster is fairly well established.

[Bristol Rob]

[Bristol Rob]

Link to the Guardian story.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/15/bradford-fire-stafford-heginbotham-martin-fletcher

[Bristol Rob]

Extract from the book

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/15/the-story-of-the-bradford-fire-book-extract

[phantom]

Pretty strong claims in the article!

[CotswoldRed]

That is one hell of a series of coincidences.

Absolutely that requires attention.

[Bristol Rob]

That is one hell of a series of coincidences.

Absolutely that requires attention.

 

Absolutely - although I do feel the timing of publication of this extract isn't in the best of taste.

[phantom]

Absolutely - although I do feel the timing of publication of this extract isn't in the best of taste.

 

Sadly probably done to get the most attention doing it so close to the anniverary

[Red Exile]

The author was a young survivor who lost three generations of his family, so if it's anyone's story to tell I guess it's his.

[CotswoldRed]

Absolutely - although I do feel the timing of publication of this extract isn't in the best of taste.

Understand your point.

 

As a grieving relative he probably feels he has the right to and - as he feels he's not being listened to - its a great 'opportunity'.

[Tin Soldier]

Went to the old Valley Parade ground with City - the year it burnt down.

Kind of haunts you every time it gets mentioned and was strange being there again last night.

Big credit to the Bradford fans last night!

[Maesknoll Red]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/15/bradford-fire-stafford-heginbotham-martin-fletcher?CMP=share_btn_fb

Amazing allegation after all these years.

[WhistleHappy]

Thirty years, unbelievable such tragic scenes from the TV screen that day are so indelibly fixed in my minds eye.. Absolutely awful, something that seemed so small that rapidly became a terrible raging inferno, without doubt one of the worst sights many of us would have witnessed in our lives.

If there is a deeper darker truth behind that days events in Bradford the victims families and survivors need to know that truth... however unpalatable it may be.

These revelations are seriously concerning and MUST be investigated for all concerned - sincerely hope no fowl play was involved, but its very worrying to think the worst may be the case.

RIP all those people who perished that day.

[handsofclay]

Like the subtle humour of Whistle Happy in suspecting that fowl play had been involved at Bradford City.

Onto the subject, although the previous fires sound dodgy,I  can't see their then chairman being so stupid as to start a fire in a packed stand with tv cameras present to boot. There would bound to be an inquiry, even if no lives were lost and if he thought that the fire would spread slower than it did allowing everyone to escape unhurt then surely with thousands present such a fire could've been suppressed and damage limited. I would've thought it would've been a better tactic to have started such a fire at about 3 in the morning or on a day of the week that wasn't a football day...they did exist back then. The insurance payout would've been the same so why take the extra risks.

 

That isn't to say that Stafford Higginthingy wasn't negligent in allowing the rubbish to accumulate for so long beneath the wooden stand or that he might've even deliberately left this potential fire hazard in place knowing one day someone would unknowingly set the thing alight. But it is easy to accuse a dead man of being a modern day Crassus...although I'm being a hypocrite now as Crassus is even longer in the grave. Although the sources, including contemporary ones, seem to indicate that match day for him had an entirely different meaning than it does for us footy fans.

[Guest]

When there is a tragedy often you'll find those most afflicted look for someone to blame and if you look long enough you often will find at least circumstantial evidence to support your views.

 

For one, that article tells us very little of those other fires. It reads as if each fire resulted in a total write off, whereas in reality some of those could be completely trivial fires which were dealt with and put out without much or any damage. Also, if you look at the timeline this goes back to 1967 and through to June 1981. What was the prevalence of fires then? What were fire safety practices like then? Another quirk, 3 fires between August and December 1977 - that'd be a pretty cavalier timeline if the fires were not innocently started. Look at where the fires started also - factory, factory, factory, factory... What sort of industries were these in? Who were the insurers - was it always the same company or were they related?

 

It also talks of Heginbotham lying about seeing some safety certificates. Well, if he was as involved in business as this article suggests its perfectly reasonable perhaps it slipped his mind. Or frankly yes he may have lied, but that could be panic and just a poor choice. It is an assumption that this indicates something untoward.

 

These are interesting finds and perhaps indicate it's worth digging up the old enquiries and ensuring the process was not flawed. But it proves nothing and, being polite, seems like it's still a work in progress.

 

Personally I believe the insurers involved would have carried out their own independent and thorough examination likely to uncover something untoward if it was there.

[Monkeh]

it was a tragic tragic accident, I can't believe some one would do that with a packed stand,

if it happened a night then maybe but not during a televised match with the whole country watching,

[YorkshireSection]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/15/bradford-fire-stafford-heginbotham-martin-fletcher?CMP=share_btn_fb

Amazing allegation after all these years.

Easily the most interesting thread I've read on here for years, as someone who's fairly local to the area (West Yorkshire), it's a fascinating read and makes me wonder- that if this was one of the "big" clubs would more be done now this info has arised, let's wait and see. I think the coincidences definitely warrant a little bit of police time......

PS I'm not saying the police haven't had a good old dig, it's just if there is new info then a little bit of time will probably be spent.

Let's hope for the victims and family's sake that whatever the outcome they don't have to go through this tragic heartbreak again.

Rest in peace the Bradford 56.

[YorkshireSection]

it was a tragic tragic accident, I can't believe some one would do that with a packed stand,

if it happened a night then maybe but not during a televised match with the whole country watching,

I tend to agree with you, but there's some wrong uns out there and nothing would surprise me these days.

[Monkeh]

I tend to agree with you, but there's some wrong uns out there and nothing would surprise me these days.

aye don't get me wrong there chairman at the time should of be charged and found guilty of corprate manslaughter (or whatever the equivilant was then) at the very lease,

He was warned by the council and the HSE that the stand was a death trap but did nothing about it,

 

But we are judging 1985 on 2015's standards

[Manon]

I can't see their then chairman being so stupid as to start a fire in a packed stand with tv cameras present to boot. There would bound to be an inquiry, even if no lives were lost and if he thought that the fire would spread slower than it did allowing everyone to escape unhurt then surely with thousands present such a fire could've been suppressed and damage limited. I would've thought it would've been a better tactic to have started such a fire at about 3 in the morning or on a day of the week that wasn't a football day...they did exist back then. The insurance payout would've been the same so why take the extra risks.

Yes I'd agree that this is a one-sided story, and it's difficult not to come to a conclusion based on this man's research and the article alone.

However, if we are to tread that hypothetical path, you could say that desperate men do desperate things. Depending on the degree of the man's financial problems, and the paranoia that a track record of previous fires might bring, he might have deemed it necessary to start it (the fire) when it was believable that it could start.

To have a fire in the early hours in a stand where no one was present, and no electricity was being used seems very unlikely compared to the easy explanation that a cigarette had slipped through into the rubbish beneath. The fire grew at an absolutely horrendous rate, and perhaps the chairman did not anticipate this either, believing the fans would all easily get out.

On the flip side, one would wonder, why on earth a man who has been warned about fire safety issues on three occasions would start a fire that could land him in jail.

[cider-manc]

When there is a tragedy often you'll find those most afflicted look for someone to blame and if you look long enough you often will find at least circumstantial evidence to support your views.

 

For one, that article tells us very little of those other fires. It reads as if each fire resulted in a total write off, whereas in reality some of those could be completely trivial fires which were dealt with and put out without much or any damage. Also, if you look at the timeline this goes back to 1967 and through to June 1981. What was the prevalence of fires then? What were fire safety practices like then? Another quirk, 3 fires between August and December 1977 - that'd be a pretty cavalier timeline if the fires were not innocently started. Look at where the fires started also - factory, factory, factory, factory... What sort of industries were these in? Who were the insurers - was it always the same company or were they related?

 

It also talks of Heginbotham lying about seeing some safety certificates. Well, if he was as involved in business as this article suggests its perfectly reasonable perhaps it slipped his mind. Or frankly yes he may have lied, but that could be panic and just a poor choice. It is an assumption that this indicates something untoward.

 

These are interesting finds and perhaps indicate it's worth digging up the old enquiries and ensuring the process was not flawed. But it proves nothing and, being polite, seems like it's still a work in progress.

 

Personally I believe the insurers involved would have carried out their own independent and thorough examination likely to uncover something untoward if it was there.

 

This should be done regardless. The public enquiry was on the 5th June, so less than a month afterwards. Whilst people may argue that it should be done as quickly as possible- this was a community in mourning and needed time to come to terms with the tragic events. Also as mentioned above it would of been done to 1985 standards and not 2015's, which is proven by their conclusion that it was "probably" started by a match or cigarette.

 

[The Batman]

With every tragedy, there are always those who push for alternatives to the "official" outcome.

 

Whether it's JFK's shooting by the CIA, military planes hitting the WTC, Diana murdered by MI5, Chernobyl was deliberate, Holodomor Denial.

 

This is no different.

[Monkeh]

 

 

This should be done regardless. The public enquiry was on the 5th June, so less than a month afterwards. Whilst people may argue that it should be done as quickly as possible- this was a community in mourning and needed time to come to terms with the tragic events. Also as mentioned above it would of been done to 1985 standards and not 2015's, which is proven by their conclusion that it was "probably" started by a match or cigarette.

 

 

I do think its worth revisting, compare it to hillsborough for a second, they kept looking into it and finally got the truth so there is no harm reopening it and looking it at todays standards

[Guest]

 

 

This should be done regardless. The public enquiry was on the 5th June, so less than a month afterwards. Whilst people may argue that it should be done as quickly as possible- this was a community in mourning and needed time to come to terms with the tragic events. Also as mentioned above it would of been done to 1985 standards and not 2015's, which is proven by their conclusion that it was "probably" started by a match or cigarette.

 

 

 

You are quite right its difficult to determine when is the best time for an enquiry - obviously you need enough time to collect all of the evidence, but equally you need to act swiftly to a) appease the public and b) not lose any evidence or the opportunity to test evidence.

 

Personally I am not so bullish that the enquiry should be definitely reopened or reviewed, certainly not on the basis of this one chap's findings alone. The book may be different, but for reasons explained above, based upon that article it is incredibly lacking in any real detail and just presents facts; the detail could very easily confirm that each fire was innocent and I don't think it's at all naive that this may be a possibility.

 

I do think it's worth looking at further, I would suggest a big of desk time spent by the police dotting the I's and crossing the T's of this chaps research would be sufficient for now. Having done that if there is still something which merits investigation proceed.

[Red-Robbo]

Nine fires and a history of things burning down when he got into financial difficulties (as he was at the time of the Valley Parade blaze) is very very suspicious, but I don't think you'd ever be able to prove anything at this distance in time and with the main suspect dead.

It could well have started accidentally from a dropped fag, or it could also have been started deliberately by someone who wanted it to seem that it was started by an accidentally dropped fag.

[Monkeh]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11745/9807731/justice-popplewell-dismisses-valley-parade-fire-claim

 

Popplewell makes some good points, that the fire insurers are very sceptical and would of looked into it in order not to payout etc.....

[cider-manc]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11745/9807731/justice-popplewell-dismisses-valley-parade-fire-claim

 

Popplewell makes some good points, that the fire insurers are very sceptical and would of looked into it in order not to payout etc.....

 

I'm not convinced it was started deliberately but if safety procedures were ignored, the stand was unsafe etc it needs to be investigated properly.

 

I read somewhere that there was rumours that newspapers from the 60's were found under the stand after the fire- which if true indicates that the amount of rubbish under it must have been incredible (I repeat- I'm not sure if that was true or rumour) I also read that fire exits etc were blocked/locked at the back of the stands.

 

It may have been a long time ago but the bloke who wrote the book lost 3 generations of his family in the blaze and although pointing the finger doesn't really achieve anything in the grand scheme of things reopening an enquiry may help him and other families to get some sort of closure.

[Guest]

I'm not convinced it was started deliberately but if safety procedures were ignored, the stand was unsafe etc it needs to be investigated properly.

 

I read somewhere that there was rumours that newspapers from the 60's were found under the stand after the fire- which if true indicates that the amount of rubbish under it must have been incredible (I repeat- I'm not sure if that was true or rumour) I also read that fire exits etc were blocked/locked at the back of the stands.

 

It may have been a long time ago but the bloke who wrote the book lost 3 generations of his family in the blaze and although pointing the finger doesn't really achieve anything in the grand scheme of things reopening an enquiry may help him and other families to get some sort of closure.

 

Only if there was some failure of the original enquiry. Proving that there was a failure of the original enquiry, or that there genuinely is something worth consideration is going to be extremely difficult, and in any case are we here dealing with a situation where closure will only be achieved if someone is ultimately culpable?

 

Like I said in my original post he has my fullest sympathy and its obvious he has done a lot of work and ear that he thinks he has found conclusive proof, but what he has found is circumstantial and, unless the book shows otherwise, its quite flimsy really information which would have been readily available to the insurers.

[Monkeh]

I'm not convinced it was started deliberately but if safety procedures were ignored, the stand was unsafe etc it needs to be investigated properly.

 

I read somewhere that there was rumours that newspapers from the 60's were found under the stand after the fire- which if true indicates that the amount of rubbish under it must have been incredible (I repeat- I'm not sure if that was true or rumour) I also read that fire exits etc were blocked/locked at the back of the stands.

 

It may have been a long time ago but the bloke who wrote the book lost 3 generations of his family in the blaze and although pointing the finger doesn't really achieve anything in the grand scheme of things reopening an enquiry may help him and other families to get some sort of closure.

they said at the time it was a 20 year build up of rubbish,